Mapping Indigenous Perspectives in the Making of the Cybercartographic Atlas of the Lake Huron Treaty Relationship Process: A Performative Approach in a Reconciliation Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses a two-pronged approach to designing and developing an online, interactive multimedia – cybercartographic – atlas that combines critical academic perspectives with Anishinaabe approaches to understanding in order to “tell the story” of the Robinson Huron Treaty process in a way intended to enhance awareness of Anishinaabe perspectives and expose the epistemological and ontological roots of colonialism. Building on the work that created the Treaties Module of the Living Cybercartographic Atlas of Indigenous Perspectives and Knowledge, this atlas project continues to reflect the comprehensiveness and multidimensionality of Robinson Huron Treaty–based relationship processes. The article focuses on some of the performative aspects of this atlas project, such as iterative processes and spatializing history, that contribute to its success in reflecting Anishinaabe perspectives and providing the basis for a richer understanding of the treaty process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".